February 2003 - NZNOG - lists.nznog.org

RE: [nznog] nznog 2003. Possible clash
by Donald Neal 13 Feb '03

13 Feb '03

> -----Original Message----- > From: Simon Lyall [mailto:simon.lyall(a)ihug.co.nz] > Sent: Friday, 14 February 2003 10:34 > To: nznog(a)list.waikato.ac.nz > Subject: [nznog] nznog 2003. Possible clash > > > Can someone confirm the date for nznog 2003? According to this email: > > http://list.waikato.ac.nz/pipermail/nznog/2003-January/005754.html > > it's on the 10th to 12th of July. Yes, those are the planned dates. > just I notice that this appears to clash with the Netsafe conference: > > http://www.netsafe.org.nz/conferences/conferences default.asp > > I'm not sure how much the overlap of people is but it might > affect some. Could anyone affected by this please speak up NOW. - Donald Neal ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ "This communication, including any attachments, is confidential. If you are not the intended recipient, you should not read it - please contact me immediately, destroy it, and do not copy or use any part of this communication or disclose anything about it. Thank you." ------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1 0

My apologies to the list for the auto responder, the problem has been rectified.
by Gavin Palmer 13 Feb '03

13 Feb '03

Cheers Gavin Palmer

1 0

nznog 2003. Possible clash
by Simon Lyall 13 Feb '03

13 Feb '03

Can someone confirm the date for nznog 2003? According to this email: http://list.waikato.ac.nz/pipermail/nznog/2003-January/005754.html it's on the 10th to 12th of July. just I notice that this appears to clash with the Netsafe conference: http://www.netsafe.org.nz/conferences/conferences_default.asp I'm not sure how much the overlap of people is but it might affect some. -- Simon Lyall. | Newsmaster | Work: simon.lyall(a)ihug.co.nz Senior Network/System Admin | Postmaster | Home: simon(a)darkmere.gen.nz Ihug Ltd, Auckland, NZ | Asst Doorman | Web: http://www.darkmere.gen.nz

1 0

Re: [nznog] Vint Cerf visiting NZ next week
by Lin Nah 13 Feb '03

13 Feb '03

On Wed, 12 Feb 2003, Joerg Micheel wrote: > On Wed, Feb 12, 2003 at 03:52:24PM +1300, Nevil Brownlee wrote: > > > I'm pleased to announce that Vinton Cerf will give a public lecture on "The > > > Internet: its future and the opportunities it presents", at the University of > > > Auckland campus from 6pm to 7pm on Thursday 20 February 2003. (Venue: U of Auckland City Campus, Library Building Basement B28) Many Thanks to Nevil for giving us the information... > So everyone can safely attend Christophe's talk on Tuesday there, > without missing out on Vint Cerf :-) And the talk is on a Thursday! Would anyone be interested in a meal of Curry and Beer after the talk? We can make a booking at one of the restaurants in the city ( eg there's 2 or 3 in Lorne St - down the hill from campus ) if people are interested. Possibly make the reservation for 7:30pm with a warning to the restaurant that we may be late due to attending a lecture on campus. What do you think? Expressions of interest either to invite(a)auckland.thursdaynightcurry.com or me please. lin ps Also curry tomorrow night at Sitar restaurant, Mt Eden Rd, 7:30pm.

3 2

New IANA IPv4 allocations and bogon updates
by Rob Thomas 12 Feb '03

12 Feb '03

Hi, NZNOG listfolk. [ Apologies to those of you who have seen this post in other fora. ] IANA has allocated 222/8 and 223/8 to APNIC as of February 2003. The sundry bogon projects have been updated to reflect these allocations. You will find the catch-all Bogon Reference Page here: http://www.cymru.com/Bogons/index.html This includes links to the Secure IOS Template, Secure Juniper Template, bogon monitoring, and other associated references. Both 222/8 and 223/8 were withdrawn from the bogon route-server as of 13 FEB 02:01:00 US CST. Thanks! Rob, for Team Cymru. -- Rob Thomas http://www.cymru.com ASSERT(coffee != empty);

1 0

Vint Cerf visiting NZ next week
by Centurion Computer Technology Ltd 12 Feb '03

12 Feb '03

You will need to notify the US Embassy in advance if you want to attend the Tuesday talk. I will copy the PDF file I received from the Embassy to anyone emailing me direct for further information. Can I get the pdf please? Thanks -- Daniel Reurich Centurion Computer Technolgy Limited Ph: (04) 565 1344 (025) 374 387 email: centurion(a)paradise.net.nz

1 0

DNS Zone Push Review
by Nick Griffin 12 Feb '03

12 Feb '03

The current number of DNS Zone Pushs being executed is 2 per day (11am and 7pm). I am currently reviewing this and am proposing that the number is increased to a maximum of 6 per 24 hour period with the following timetable 3am, 7 am, 11am, 3pm, 7pm, and 11pm. As apart of the review I am seeking feedback from registrars, stakeholders and interested parties: a) If there are any reasons that should be considered that would stop this from occurring. b) If there is a lead time to update your systems to cater with such a change, and what that lead might be. c) if there is a timetable that is prefered over that proposed. When doing the review I shall be taking into account the above when deciding the Zone Push timetable and roll out schedule. The timetable that I will be working to is: 28 February Receipt of comments 7 March Announcement of Zone push timetable and implementation schedule This notice will also be published on the NZRS website, DNC website, the SRS newsletter and the NZNOG. Cheers Nick Nick Griffin Registry Manager .nz Registry Services PO Box 24361 Wellington New Zealand e nick.griffin(a)nzrs.net.nz <mailto:nick.griffin(a)nzrs.net.nz> m 64 21 505 229 p 64 4 931 6977 f 64 4 931 6979 w www.nzrs.net.nz <http://www.nzrs.net.nz> CAUTION : This Email message and accompanying data may contain information that is confidential and subject to privilege. If you are not the intended recipient, you are notified that any use, dissemination, distribution or copying of this message or data is prohibited. If you have received this Email in error, please notify me immediately and delete all material pertaining to this Email. Thank you. -- Nick Griffin Registry Manager .nz Registry Services PO Box 24361 Wellington New Zealand e nick.griffin(a)nzrs.net.nz <mailto:nick.griffin(a)nzrs.net.nz> m 64 21 505 229 p 64 4 931 6977 f 64 4 931 6979 w www.nzrs.net.nz <http://www.nzrs.net.nz> CAUTION : This Email message and accompanying data may contain information that is confidential and subject to privilege. If you are not the intended recipient, you are notified that any use, dissemination, distribution or copying of this message or data is prohibited. If you have received this Email in error, please notify me immediately and delete all material pertaining to this Email. Thank you.

1 0

ISDN performance
by Michael Hallager 12 Feb '03

12 Feb '03

Hello, Can anyone please inform me *From first hand experience only* what the average latency is across a Centrex Auckland BRA ISDN? Best regards, Michael Hallager michael at comsolve.net.nz -------------------------------------------------------

2 1

RE: [nznog] FW: APEC TEL IPv6 Workshop
by Mike Clark 12 Feb '03

12 Feb '03

some good ones linked to from vint cerfs site: http://www.worldcom.com/global/resources/cerfs_up/issues/ -----Original Message----- From: Andy Linton [mailto:asjl(a)lpnz.org] Sent: Thursday, 13 February, 2003 16:02 To: 'nznog(a)list.waikato.ac.nz' Subject: Re: [nznog] FW: APEC TEL IPv6 Workshop I spotted these on the ISOC site recently: Waiting for IP version 6 by Geoff Huston (http://ispcolumn.isoc.org/2003-01/Waiting.html) and Response by IPv6 Forum to "Waiting for IP version 6" by Latif Ladid and Jim Bound (http://www.isoc.org/pubs/isp/ipv6response.shtml_ _______________________________________________ Nznog mailing list Nznog(a)list.waikato.ac.nz http://list.waikato.ac.nz/mailman/listinfo/nznog

1 0

Re: [nznog] FW: APEC TEL IPv6 Workshop
by Ewen McNeill 12 Feb '03

12 Feb '03

In message <C031BD7C-3EF7-11D7-B971-00039312C852(a)automagic.org>, Joe Abley writes: >On Wednesday, Feb 12, 2003, at 21:00 Canada/Eastern, Frank March wrote: >>[APEC workshop will cover] >> Issues surrounding the current standard of Internet Protocol version 4 >> (IPv4) and how it limits the number of Internet Protocol (IP) addresses >> available globally. > >Someone should tell these people that we are not running out of IPv4 >addresses any time soon They actually only talk about IPv4 limiting the number of addresses available -- which is true. There are only 2**32 of them :-) But it's not quite the point. However people outside the network-core could be forgiven for believing that there's a dire shortage of IP addresses. When only a few years ago a business connection would often have a /24 or greater address space, often one which was "portable" (in theory, but perhaps not in practice), these days plenty of business connections are given a single (gateway) IP address, and it is strongly suggested they use NAT -- even when hosting multiple servers requiring incoming connections. (In at least one instance I've seen multiple connections installed primarily "to get another IP address". When they started in on adding a few more hosting servers, and ordering their third connection "to get another IP address" I put my foot down, and they have finally applied for a /28, which will already be > 50% filled simply properly numbering the existing servers.) >and that the real pressing issue is how you make the routing system >scale (an issue which IPv6 does not attempt to address). This is the flip side to the "one address, or maybe a few more if you beg lots". You end up lots of very long prefixes. To be sure many of those couldn't care less about routing, and CIDR works well for them. But you end up with a certain percentage that have a legitimate need to do their own routing, for redundancy or otherwise, and still have fairly long prefixes. Even if they go through the (non-obvious to those outside the core networking arena) process required to get a /24, that still gives you a lot of /24s floating around to deal with routing. I tend to agree with you that by and large IPv6 will just shuffle this problem around some, and still leave basically the same issue with "how do we deal with all these routes". (The address space will be larger, and in theory will be more hierachically allocated, but there'll still be the same people, and the same portion of them will want/need to do their own routing, etc.) I'd be happy to see IPv6 deployed to get rid of some of the worst excesses of NAT I see (particularly the "traffic in to one IP address splits off to N internal servers in difficult to keep track of fashions") but other than that I don't think it's going to solve all that much by itself. Ewen

2 1